January 6 is the date of the next SCOTUS conference regarding the eligibility (or lack thereof) of Barack Obama to be president of the United States. They will be discussing the Berg case in particular. This is the most detailed of the cases appealed to SCOTUS. We will receive a decision that day or very soon thereafter.
Two With Potential
December 17, 2008 at 11:19 AM (Constitutional, political)
Tags: constitution, obama, SCOTUS, "supreme court", berg, "unqualified", "citizenship issue", Keyes
There are two cases with the greatest potential to make it to SCOTUS regarding the Obama citizenship issue – Phil Berg’s case and Alan Keyes’ case. While the Berg case lost the request for an injunction on the electoral process, the ballot of the electoral college won’t be certified until January 6, 2009, 14 days prior to the inauguration of the next US president. This is not necessarily a detriment to the case, because should SCOTUS take up either case, they could potentially have a decision made prior to the certification date in the Senate and Biden could be inaugurated if they reach a decision favorable to Berg or Keyes.
Keyes’ case stipulates that as a candidate, he was forced to run against an unqualified individual. Lest you believe this to be a case about race, as most Democrats seem to be yelling, Mr. Keyes is, in all his glory, a black man. He ran as a candidate on the American Independent Party ticket. So, race is totally out the window. Even if it were a matter that could be chalked up to race, Mr. Obama is only 1/7 black. The rest of him is 1/2 white and the balance is Arab. So, race cannot possibly be an issue here. He is more my race than the black race. I still don’t like him.
Mr. Keyes’ case stipulates that the secretary of state in the State of California failed to qualify all of the candidates on the ballot and, instead, relied on an affidavit of the DNC for Mr. Obama when she should have reviewed the necessary documentation to place him on the California ballot or disqualify him from said ballot. Mr. Keyes’ case stipulates that Mr. Obama is not an American citizen because he was adopted in Indonesia by an Indonesian citizen and he lost his American citizenship; that he never acquired a US passport (or no governmental documentation can be found to verify such acquisition) and so traveled to Pakistan on his Indonesian passport, or possibly a passport of British issuance (Obama’s grandmother in Kenya says she was present at his birth – Kenya was then a British commonwealth called “Zanzibar”). Either way, Keyes asserts that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen.
Mr. Berg’s case is very straightforward. Mr. Obama lost any potential American (by birth) citizenship in two particular ways: his mother was not old enough to have passed her citizenship on to Mr. Obama; and he lost his citizenship when he was adopted by Mr. Soetoro in Indonesia when neither the US nor Indonesia recognized dual citizenship and he failed to re-establish his American citizenship on his majority (18th birthday) with an oath of allegiance. Such oath would only have made him a “naturalized” citizen, not a “natural born” citizen.
There are still about 14 cases still out there with appeals and are on their way to SCOTUS in one form or another. Berg’s case is already in the hands of a SCOTUS justice in the form of a “writ of certiorari”. It has not been conferenced yet. Keyes’ case is still at the California level, on its way to the California Supreme Court.
Donofrio Lost His SCOTUS Appeal
December 11, 2008 at 5:06 PM (Constitutional, political)
Tags: appeal, berg, constitution, donofrio, ineligible, obama, SCOTUS
Just because Donofrio lost his appeal to the SCOTUS does not mean that the issue is finally over. In fact, there are several more in the pipeline on their way to or already at SCOTUS for consideration. Phillip Berg’s case is still pending. There is another case up for conference Friday, again on a day when the justices normally do not discuss the cases before them (that’s usually a Wednesday). So, while those who support Mr. Obama as the unchallenged president-elect, there are, is, in fact, an ever growing populace of those who want one simple answer . . . where was Mr. Obama born and produce that darned birth certificate from the vault in Hawaii. Otherwise, he’ll never be believed and he will have a substantial portion of the population which will never recognize him as a constitutionally-valid head of state.
Delay In Decision…
December 6, 2008 at 8:49 PM (Constitutional, political)
Tags: "supreme court", constitution, eligibility, obama, presidency, SCOTUS
The Supreme Court of the United States has delayed its decision as to whether it will accept the Donofrio v. NJ Secretary of State on the eligibility issue of Barack Hussein Obama. This is not surprising in and of itself and I believe that it may bode well for the outcome. I could, of course, be wrong, but I believe that it means that a sufficient number of justices are mulling over the ramifications of whether a person not qualified to hold the office may, in fact, have been elected to the office. If only 4 of the justices side with Donofrio, the case will go to argument phase, on an expedited schedule. The websited, WorldNetDaily.com and Drudgereport.com are carrying information on this situation. In addition, various state news publications have begun picking up the issue including cases in Kent, Washington; Chicago, Illinois; and many others. More than 60,000 letters were delivered via FedEx to the Supreme Court and a petition containing more than 150,000 electronic signatures was delivered as well. This was through formal petitions on the government, which is the right of every citizen in the US. These figures do NOT include independent efforts of private citizens that have surely taken place.
For anyone who believes this does not have bearing on the future of our Constitution, think again. It is vital that we, as a society, uphold the Constitution and its various Articles, individually and jointly to ensure that we do not allow ourselves to be subjected to a tyrannical governmental body.
For anyone who thinks that Article II, Section I is not important in its mandate that a candidate be a ‘natural born’ citizen, not just someone who moves here from another country or was a citizen, lost the citizenship and then returned to this country – it is ALL IMPORTANT. What’s to keep a person who is not a natural born citizen from moving to this country, running for the presidency and then taking over our country from the office of president without having spent one single bullet, but yet usurping our government, killing all the government officials (just as Saddam Hussein did unless they agreed to support his regime) and doing away with our country’s freedoms? What’s to prevent a radical faction from a foreign country from taking over? That’s why we have this portion of the Constitution! That’s why our founding fathers didn’t want the King of England or one of his heirs to come over here and take back America into British hands (or worse yet, some other country).
You cannot be a dual citizen and hold the office of president. You cannot be a foreign born person, who has acquired American citizenship and hold the office of president. You cannot be an American who gave up citizenship, either through one or both parents, then come back to this country and assume the office of president. In each case, you have loyalties that lay outside the sole loyalties of those required to be president of the US. You have loyalties that could affect your decision-making process in dealing with foreign governments. Your citizenship does matter. Your manner of acquiring that citizenship matters.
I personally don’t care what racial makeup a person has – my sole concern is the upholding of our country’s Constitution. And I sincerely hope that the delay in making a decision as to whether to allow the case to proceed to argument in the SCOTUS bodes well. So do hundreds of thousands of other Americans.
Gaining Steam…..
December 4, 2008 at 10:39 AM (Constitutional, political)
Well, the Obama citizenship case is gaining steam. Seems that several mainstream publications, both online versions and in print, are now talking about the controversy. Maybe it’s just a bit more than angry Democrats seem to think it is…yes, I said “angry” Democrats. See, the Dems who wanted Obama elected, regardless of his political leanings, regardless of his philosophies, regardless of his qualifications (or severe lack thereof), are still angry at anyone who didn’t vote for Obama. Now, with this controversy growing over his Constitutional eligibility, they have a new bone to chew on.
In looking around the internet for the last several days, not only is WorldNetDaily carrying the story, but Pravda (online edition) and the Houston Chronical (online edition) are carrying the discussion as well. In the Chicago Tribune, one of the two major Chicago papers, there is a full-page ad purchased and placed in today’s edition, demanding he release his long form vault birth certificate. See, even though the Director of Health and Human Services of Hawaii verified that there is, indeed, a birth certificate in their vault and that the certificate is “valid”, she failed to verify the place of his birth, and his citizenship at the time of his birth, so her verification holds no water.
Now, with more than 20 cases overall, having been filed against secretaries of state, county officials nationwide, and at least 4 cases being presented to the US Supreme Court, it’s just possible that this will gain sufficient steam. Yes, the chances of getting the case to the arguments phase is limited. The justices may not have the backbone to even consider the cases; however, this is what their court was designed to do and it is their responsibility to oversee the case. It is their primary function to uphold the Constitution of the US.
I’ve seen comments via WorldNetDaily that some believe the “constitution means what we today say it means”. This is garbage. The Founding Fathers did not make any mention of the ability to “interpret” the Constitution. They were very clear in their wording and their intent. If one were to simply decide what they wanted the Constitution to mean, it could be based on their mood of the moment. S/he could decide that today the Constitution means that s/he doesn’t have to accept orders from her/his commanding officer because s/he has decided that there is no commander in chief and no one has the authority to tell her/him what to do. What chaos that would create. It is vital to the rule of law that the Constitution be the bedrock (unchanging, unflinching) on which all other laws within this nation are founded.
One of the amendments to the Constitution, in the BILL OF RIGHTS, stipulates that the common man has the right to question the actions of his government. This is not simply the local government, or his congressman, but ALL governmental levels.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the common person does not have the right to require a redress of grievances at any level of government, then no one in this country has such right. This, I believe will be the crux of the whole matter as regards the Donofrio and Berg cases against Obama. See, the lower courts have ruled that those bringing the suits do not have “standing”. In other words, they don’t have the right to sue over this issue. Fact is, “standing” is simply a creation of attorneys and judges within the court system so that they don’t have to deal with issues they feel uncomfortable dealing with. ‘Standing’ is a concept that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend. This is evidenced by the fact that they fail to discuss the requirement of an intermediary to bring such suits against the government. Had they indicated that the common man could not question the veracity of someone’s eligibility for an office, they would have indicated as much in the Constitution itself.
But they did not say that the common man could not sue the government for redress. And, since no one else within the legal structure seems willing to bring the issue to bear, it falls upon those within this country who honor and respect the Framers of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers to bring this suit. It falls to Federalists and the Common Citizen.
There will be a sit-in on Friday – a vigil if you will. There will also be not less than 140,000 signatures delivered to the Supreme Court (New Jersey’s supreme court seems to think there is too little interest in the matter to pursue a case and so this is why Donofrio’s case was dismissed there). 140,000 is not a significantly large percentage of Americans; however, it represents the number of voices of those who do want our Constitution upheld and for this issue to be settled for once and for all.
If the issue is swept under the rug by the SCOTUS, then it paves the way for any person to move to this country and, for good or ill, run for President of the US. It may not seem like such a big deal until you consider that radicals from around the world could come to this country and do great damage to it if they were to be able to run for and achieve the presidency. What could happen? Well, they could do away with our formal system of justice. They could turn our own military on the American people. They could make our country a theocracy. They could do something similar to what Saddam Hussein did with his parliament – take each member of parliament that was not Baathist and have them executed. Would you be willing to live with such measures taken against your freedom? Not me. This is why the sanctity of the US Constitution and its clear message is so very important.
politicalchick1